Reagan Plan On Missiles Stirs Debate

October 24, 1986|By New York Times

WASHINGTON -- A call by President Reagan to eliminate all ballistic missiles and proceed with Star Wars research has set off a debate that cuts across the American political spectrum and involves some shifts in alignment among conservatives and liberals.

Moscow has countered with the suggestion that each side eliminate all long-range weapons and sharply limit Star Wars research and testing.

But American military experts are asking more and more often whether Reagan's proposal to eliminate all ballistic missiles is actually in the interest of the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies.

''It is a worrisome proposal,'' said Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser under President Gerald Ford.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff are reviewing Reagan's proposal, which calls for deep cuts in long-range arms over 5 years and elimination of all ballistic missiles in 10 years.

The proposal was not examined by the Joint Chiefs before it was advanced by Reagan at the summit talks in Iceland.

The president had proposed in a July 25 letter to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that each side submit a plan for the eventual elimination of ballistic missiles. But no schedule for eliminating the missiles was proposed in that letter.

Arms control advocates, for their part, are divided on the proposal. Spurgeon M. Keeny Jr., the president of the Arms Control Association, said the plan to eliminate missiles and proceed with an ambitious Star Wars program could not be negotiated and would divert attention from realistic compromises. But other arms control supporters back Reagan.

''There is no organization that has been more critical of President Reagan's Star Wars plan than ours,'' said Jeremy Stone, the director of the federation. ''This proposal is really a good deal.''

Under the proposal, after each side eliminated ballistic missiles within 10 years, each would then be free to use defensive systems as ''insurance'' against cheating. Each side would keep bomber forces and long-range cruise missiles. They would also keep tactical nuclear weapons, such as nuclear artillery shells and atomic mines.

The administration has said its proposal has the advantage of removing one destabilizing threat -- fast-flying missiles -- while leaving the United States with other weapons to defend itself.